Public Bill Committee

[Hugh Bayley in the Chair]

Clause 65

Assessments relating to learning difficulties

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 57, in clause 65, page 35, line 13, at end insert—
‘(2A) If a local education authority in England maintains a statement of special educational needs for a person and if, during the year, the person leaves school to pursue alternative post-16 education, the authority must arrange for an assessment to be conducted early in the first year of the new course.’.—[Mr. Gibb.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Jim Knight: Mr. Bayley, I trust that, like the rest of us, you are refreshed after our short break.
The clause requires local authorities to arrange learning difficulty assessments for young people with statements of special educational needs who are expected to leave schooling during or at the end of the current school year. Every Child Matters and Youth Matters signal the Government’s commitment to giving local authorities responsibility for Connexions services, and those assessments are currently carried out by Connexions.
There is a statutory transition planning process for young people with special educational needs statements beginning in year 9 and continuing until the young person leaves school. Connexions, and specifically personal advisers, take the lead in supporting young people with learning difficulties at key points of transition. For example, the personal adviser might decide that a young person with learning difficulties would benefit from school-college link courses, or from work placements. Personal advisers also make sure that young people are aware of the various learning options, such as diplomas or the foundation learning tier, available to them.
Carrying out a learning difficulty assessment is part of supporting and planning for transition, working closely with professionals supporting young people with special educational needs to ensure that all the young person’s needs are fully met. In completing the assessment, the Connexions personal adviser works closely with the professional service that has been supporting the young person through school, and other specialists help. The personal adviser also works closely with the young person and their family and/or carers to ensure that the learning difficult assessment adequately reflects that young person’s needs. Once a young person has started a new course, Connexions will also follow through to check that the provision is suitable.
The transfer of legal responsibility for the assessments to local authorities would put local authorities’ accountability for them in law on a sure footing. The Bill widens the circumstances in which the assessments should be carried out to cover not only those who are leaving school at the end of their compulsory schooling, but those who remain in school after the age of 16 but subsequently leave to pursue education or training elsewhere. That might be the case if a young person wishes to remain in school to improve his or her GCSE results, for example, and a year later, having done so, wishes to attend college. Or it might be that a young person simply changes their mind about what provision best meets their needs.
The extension is a necessary measure arising from our reforms of 14-to-19 learning and the proposals to raise the age of compulsory participation in learning. It means that those young people who are subject to a statement of special educational needs who leave school to pursue further learning at any point after the end of compulsory schooling, rather than at the end of year 11, will have their future needs assessed.
The clause requires the assessment to be carried out at any point during a school year. For young people who have very clear long-term plans, the assessment would ideally be carried out in the autumn term of their last year of schooling, to support applications to colleges and other forms of higher learning. That will be set out in guidance to local authorities. However, some young people change their minds and decide to go into further education or training quite late in the school year, so it is right that the local authority should carry out the assessment at whatever point in the year is sensible for the young person involved. Stipulating a certain time in the year when the assessments need to be carried out risks local authorities missing hundreds of young people who make the decision to continue in learning after that point.
The amendment is intended to ensure that if young people with special educational needs in their last year of compulsory education change their plans at short notice, the duty to arrange an assessment applies. I am delighted to tell the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that this is already the case and that the amendment is therefore unnecessary. If a young person is of compulsory school age, the local authority is already under a duty to arrange for the special educational provision set out in a statement. It does not matter whether that provision is delivered in a school or in other appropriate settings, although the statement may need to be amended to take account of the new environment. During year 11, if the young person intends to carry on in further education, training or higher education, they will receive a learning needs assessment.
It is important to remember that the local authority must arrange for an assessment to be conducted at some time during a young person’s last year of compulsory schooling. That duty applies whether the young person has clear, fixed long-term plans or makes a decision, or changes their mind, in late August, say after their GCSE results. In the latter case it might be that, for practical reasons, the assessment is not carried out until early September, but that does not stop the duty to arrange the assessment from applying.
The amendment, as worded and as positioned in the clause, would apply only to young people in compulsory schooling. However, I am also happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that, should a young person beyond the age of compulsory schooling decide that school is no longer the right environment in which to learn and transfer to alternative provision, either immediately or at the beginning of the next year, the duty will still apply. Again for practical reasons, if the young person leaves school at short notice, the actual assessment might take place after they have left and quite possibly are already undertaking alternative provision. That does not stop the duty from applying.
On the basis of that fairly full explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am reassured that the circumstances envisaged by the amendment are already covered by existing legislation. However, the clause as drafted seems to say that new section 139A(2) of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 will apply only if the local education authority
“maintains a statement of special educational needs for a person, and...believes that the person will leave school, at the end of his last year of compulsory schooling”.
Only if those two conditions are met will the requirement that
“The authority must arrange for an assessment...to be conducted at some time during last year of compulsory schooling.”
apply.
Will the Minister briefly explain why the duty still applies and why the person who is staying on to the sixth form will still get an assessment? If the young person is not leaving school, I would have thought that the condition in proposed new subsection (1)(b) would not apply and that, therefore, the assessment under subsection (2) would not be required. I am happy to rely on the Minister’s assurance, but it might be clearer if that particular point of principle was addressed, if he is able to respond to that point.

Jim Knight: I am trying to work out the detail in order to answer the hon. Gentleman’s perfectly reasonable question. The answer is not coming to me immediately, but if he bears with me for a second, I am sure that my swift reading of the clause will help.
Perhaps the best thing for me to do would be to write to the Committee, reiterating that staying on in sixth form with a statement lasts until 18. I will signpost for the Committee exactly how that works in the wiring of the Bill, because I do not have that immediately to hand.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to the Minister for that promise. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Gordon Marsden: I beg to move amendment No. 160, in clause 65, page 35, line 22, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.
Mr. Bayley, I apologise for my late arrival at the sitting.
I say at the outset that the proposed amendment is probing; I will not be asking the Committee to vote on it this afternoon. Also, some of the ground covered by the amendment has been covered previously in Opposition amendments. I was encouraged by some of the assurances that my hon. Friend the Minister was able to give and the importance that the Government attaches to the position of young people with special educational needs in the context of the Bill and specifically in the context of assessments.
The amendment comes from the Special Education Consortium. I emphasise that the fact that it is a probing amendment in no way diminishes the importance of the subject matter. The purpose of the amendment, which deals with some of the issues we have discussed from a different direction, is to give local education authorities, which, through the transfer process, are taking on onerous responsibilities for the first time, a duty to conduct a school-leaving assessment for all young people who have learning difficulties, not just those who have an SEN statement.
As we have already heard, currently the Bill contains only a power for LEAs to assess those young people with SEN but without a statement. It was the poet Stephen Spender who said that power ends in weariness and duty, but in the context of the amendment, power and duty are separate: power, is only a pale imitation of duty. It is the concern that that power will not empower young people with special educational needs that brings the various organisations in the Special Educational Consortium, including Barnardo’s, I CAN, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the National Autistic Society to voice their concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry) and I expressed those concerns when the Bill that became the Education and Inspections Act 2006 was going through Parliament, so this is not new territory for me.
The consortium is concerned because the proposal to extend to the age of 18 the requirement to stay on is a crucial one for disabled pupils and pupils with special educational needs. It is decidedly not the case that all those young people who fall into the category of having special educational needs have statements. We have heard again some of the arguments for that. For example, the Disability Rights Commission found in a 2003 survey that non-disabled young people are twice as likely as their disabled peers to transfer to sixth form or college at 16-plus. That has a significant impact on their life chances. According to DRC statistics, by the age of 19, 9 per cent. of non-disabled young people are not in education, employment or training, whereas three times as many, 27 per cent. of disabled young people, are NEET. Because of this, disabled young people and young people with SEN have the most to gain from participating in education and training between the ages of 16 and 18.
The former Select Committee on Education and Skills considered those matters. We have heard previously how important it is that the support that is given to young people with special educational needs is continued post-16 in a way that it has not been in the past. The direction of Government policy is to reduce reliance on statementing. The guidance issued by the Department for Education and Skills in 2001 highlighted all the advantages of that approach, but the Department showed its concern about the statementing by asking the Select Committee to look again at the question of separation of funding from statementing. We have heard in a previous debate about some of the pressures that may bring some local authorities to duck out of statementing.
Overall, however, there is no doubt that new legislation needs to support and not undermine the cultural shift against statementing. LEAs do vary in their policies on issuing statements. It is not always the case that, for example, young people who come under School Action or School Action Plus have missed out of statements. It is not as simple as that; the process is much more complex. Furthermore, there is great variation in LEA statements in practice. I can confirm that from the evidence that was taken in the Education and Skills Committee’s SEN inquiry.
What I am asking the Minister to do this afternoon is to reflect further on some of the points that have been made and to go away and talk with his officials about how some of the guidance might be beefed up. There is a real concern in the SEN community that, as an unintended consequence of the transfer process, the situation in which we have first-class and second-class special educational needs young people—those who go through a proper assessment process and those who do not—could, in some cases, be at risk of expanding. I know that that is not the Government’s intention, nor the intention of anyone on this Committee, but because those concerns exist in the community, I ask the Government to reflect further on what more they can do to ensure that those fears do not become a reality.

Jim Knight: My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South seeks to amend the clause to extend the duty on local education authorities to arrange for learning difficulty assessments to be conducted so that all young people who appear to an authority to have a learning difficulty, whether or not they have had a statement of special educational needs, are assessed. The extended duty would apply to young people who are in their last year of compulsory schooling or who are over this age but not yet 25 and are expected to undertake further education, training or higher education.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on consistently championing the cause of young people with special educational needs. Earlier this month at departmental questions, he pressed my ministerial colleagues and me on what more could be done to improve provision for young people over the age of 16 with special educational needs. I understand that the amendment is supported by the Special Education Consortium.
As I set out in an earlier discussion, I do not think that it is in the best interests of all young people with learning difficulties to put them through a formal assessment automatically, when one might not be necessary. Obviously, I will reflect on what my hon. Friend has been saying and discuss it with ministerial colleagues. We do not want the two-tierism that he and some others fear in which different individuals get different treatment.
Children who are the subject of a statement of special educational needs have the most severe and complex needs. Therefore, it is right that the local authority has a duty to carry out a learning difficulty assessment when they leave school if they are moving into further education, training or higher education. However, even though young people with learning difficulties but without an SEN statement are not covered by the duty, the local authority has the power to arrange for such a assessment. There will be many instances in which it will be appropriate for such young people to receive an assessment, and where a young person would clearly benefit, the local authority would be expected to arrange for an assessment using that power.
Local authorities could be legally challenged if there is an unreasonable failure to exercise the power to arrange for an assessment that the clause gives them. We will issue statutory guidance to support local authorities in their decision making in this area. In effect, we will have something that feels a lot like a duty and a power but is judged on a case-by-case basis and with the sort of flexibility that some hon. Members on the Committee would want. I do not believe that it is right that we should compel assessment for every person. It is right that we should take a case-by-case approach.
On the basis of what I have said and my promise to continue to listen to the arguments and discuss them with my noble Friend Lord Adonis, who is responsible for such matters within the Department, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment.

Gordon Marsden: I am reassured by what my hon. Friend the Minister has said. On the basis of the assurances that he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66

Careers education: information and advice

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in clause 66, page 37, line 9, leave out from ‘manner’ to end of line 16.

Hugh Bayley: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 46, in clause 66, page 37, line 12, leave out from ‘concerned’ to end of line 16.

John Hayes: We are back to where we left off this morning, discussing careers education. Clause 66 amends part 7 of the Education Act 1997, which requires state schools to provide all pupils with a programme of careers education, appropriate information and up-to-date reference materials related to career options. Section 44 of the 1997 Act requires schools to provide access to external careers advisers to provide careers advice and guidance to pupils.
Clause 66(2) requires all secondary schools to present careers information in an “impartial manner” and to provide careers advice that is in the “best interests” of the pupil, and not to promote the interests of the school or of “other persons or institutions” in a way that is “contrary” to the pupil’s interests. Subsection (3) requires that the information and reference materials provided represent a “full range” of learning career options and not to “unduly promote” one option over another. Subsection (4) requires schools to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State that is intended to support them in delivering all of the above. Those comments refer to the Education Skills Bill as introduced in the House of Commons on 28 November 2007. Those, effectively, are the duties in part 7 of the 1997 Act as amended by subsections (2) and (3) of clause 66.
The amendments are designed to ensure impartial careers advice. As I said, clause 66 amends part 7 of the 1997 Act, which requires state secondary schools to provide pupils with appropriate careers advice and appropriate information of the sort that I have detailed.
Amendment No. 58 would leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed new subsection (2B) to section 43 of the 1997 Act. How can those giving careers advice in schools, many of whom kindly take up this extra responsibility, know exactly what is in the best interests of pupils with regard to their future? In many schools, only those who give up time in addition to their teaching responsibilities are able to provide advice and guidance to pupils, but they cannot always do so with the degree of expertise, and therefore empiricism, that should be required by the law and is certainly needed by pupils.
The legal requirement is that all options should be made known to pupils. The information should be made available to them. Proposed new subsection (2B) states that
“Any such information must be presented in an impartial manner”.
Both things are more likely to happen if we are clear now about the expertise and impartiality required in every type of school and every set of circumstances. That is what the amendment is designed to achieve.
Similarly, amendment No. 46 would remove paragraph (b), because if careers advice is both full and impartial, it clearly will not be promoting the interests of a particular school or institution. By definition, it is likely to offer a range of options, detached from those narrow considerations. My suspicion is that the paragraph was inserted as a result of the Government’s desire for more pupils to take up the new diplomas.
My support for the diplomas is known; indeed, in Committee I welcomed them on behalf of the Opposition. It is important that we do all that we can to ensure that diplomas are a success, but we will not do it by skewing the advice that pupils are given to promote diplomas rather than letting them stand on their merits, with people choosing them because they feel that they are the right option.
There are worries about the future status of A-levels and how advice might play a part in that. Those worries have been broadcast in the media and I will deal with them, perhaps more appropriately, when we discuss amendments Nos. 47 and 48. At this juncture, however, it is worth saying that certainty about the empiricism of advice would to a large extent assuage fears that A-levels were likely to be undermined by a Government determined to make diplomas work at all costs.
I do not want to say more than that at this stage, but I hope that the Minister will give an unequivocal assurance that he is as committed as I am to professional, independent and empirical advice and guidance being offered in schools.

Jim Knight: Clause 66 aims to ensure that schools discharge their statutory duty to provide careers education impartially. If the intention of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is impartiality, we are as one in that respect.
Schools should not seek to promote their own interests over those of the pupils, and that is the clear intention behind the clause. As the range of learning options increases in the coming years, and particularly as the set of qualification choices distils down, by and large, to A-levels, diplomas and apprenticeships, it will be important that young people are provided with high-quality and, importantly, impartial advice on the full range of options that are appropriate to them as individuals. Research evidence suggests that some schools are not acting impartially and are, for example, directing pupils into their own sixth forms, where they might not be able to pursue a full range of learning options.

Stephen Williams: Does the Minister concede that the existence of league tables sometimes encourages schools to act in such a perverse way that is perhaps in the interests, not of the pupils, but of the school, the perception of the school, and perhaps the career of the head teacher?

Jim Knight: We are talking about careers advice and, in that regard, about choices that are made at 16. League tables, in so far as they are published by local and national newspapers that rank the assessment and attainment tables that the Department publishes, focus largely on GCSEs rather than on post-16 qualifications, so I do not think that the hon. Gentleman’s point, interesting though it is, necessarily applies in this case.

Stephen Williams: I am not sure that I accept that the media focus entirely on GCSEs. When I was in my previous shadow ministerial role, August was ruined for both the Minster and me because we had to comment on a succession of exam results. I think that he would probably agree that there was far more media interest the day before and the day of the A-level results, when we were both on duty from about 5.30 in the morning until after midnight. That was not the case for GCSE results a week later.

Jim Knight: Indeed, the media take a huge interest in broadcasting images of attractive young women opening A-level result envelopes. That is a truism that will continue for many generations to come, I am sure. I am not saying that the media are any more or less interested in A-levels over GCSEs, but on the hon. Gentleman’s specific point about league tables, there is a difference between how A-levels and GCSEs are used.
The clause requires information given to pupils to be impartial and that any advice promotes the pupil’s best interests above those of the school, as I have said. Amendment No. 58 would remove entirely the specific duties placed on schools when giving advice. There would no longer be an explicit duty to give advice promoting the best interests of the pupils over those of the schools. That strikes at the heart of the intention of impartiality behind the clause.

John Hayes: The Minister implies that, unless instructed to do so, schools and teachers will not give high quality and impartial advice, is that right? He suggested that only by stipulation is that degree of impartiality likely to prevail. That is a bit of a snub to the head teachers and teachers throughout Britain, is it not?

Jim Knight: Naturally, I would love to believe in the notion that every school will act perfectly. However, as I said earlier there is evidence—a departmental research report, a National Foundation for Educational Research report for the Nuffield review of 14-to-19 education and training, and a further departmental research review— showing that there are schools that do not act impartially in their advice and guidance, and put the interests of the school over those of the individual pupil. Therefore, regardless of whether I would like to believe that everyone will act in the best interests of the pupil over the school, the evidence is to the contrary.
The amendment seeks to remove only paragraph (b) of proposed new subsection (2B). The intention of the inserted paragraph is to clarify the importance of presenting pupils with advice covering all the options available to them, rather than those available only at the institution at which they are studying.
There is some relationship to the new 14-to-19 curriculum and set of qualification choices that we are offering. We have said that the full entitlement that will be available from 2013 to every 14 to 19-year-old of all 14 diplomas plus the new three that will also come on stream and the new expanded apprenticeship options, will not be deliverable by one institution alone. We have always been explicit about that, even when describing only the original 14 diplomas. It is therefore important that we make it absolutely clear to educational institutions that they should not be partial in favour of an institution.
The amendment substantially reduces the degree to which impartiality is defined by the clause by removing the paragraph that makes it explicit that schools, in giving advice, must not seek to promote their own interests over those of the pupil. We believe that the paragraph that would be removed is a key element of the clause, as it makes clear the type of impartiality we are seeking to address. Its removal would have no benefit and would undermine the potency of the clause. I am sure that, as a potent politician, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will therefore wish to withdraw his amendment.

John Hayes: The Minister is not entirely convincing on the matter. The general secretary of the National Union of Teachers—a gentleman for whom I know that the Minister, like other members of the Committee, has the highest possible regard—states:
“If there is a major educational reform, then the professional judgment of teachers has to be trusted. You can’t put a set of restrictions in there about their judgment.”
He was speaking specifically in relation to the clause and to this matter.
There are doubts about whether the purpose of the Bill, as it is currently drafted, will deliver the impartiality—the empiricism, as I described it earlier—that the Minister says that he wants, or whether it is designed, in its critics estimate, to slant the system towards a particular outcome that the Government want.
That is the view of some parliamentarians. From the discussions that I have had with my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, I think that he has doubts in that regard. It is certainly what a number of people in the media think. In no less a paper than The Times, a headline on 14 January stated, “Teachers told not to promote A-levels—Ministers accused of favouring new diplomas”. Again, that is specifically in relation to the clause and to the Minister, so it is worrying.

Jim Knight: Let me make it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman that he really should not believe everything he reads, even in The Times. Even in “The Thunderer”, they sometimes get it wrong and they got it wrong in this case. The hon. Gentleman quoted the NUT. I would reply by quoting the CBI report “Shaping up for the Future”, which says:
“There is a worrying bias. This is particularly the case in schools with sixth forms which promote academic options above other post-16 routes of progression.”
The hon. Gentleman is an advocate of vocational learning; he should surely understand that there is evidence of impartiality and he should withdraw his amendment.

John Hayes: How things change. How we are truly now the people’s party. The Minister quotes the CBI, and that must be taken into account. But I do think that our shared ambition for high-quality, independent advice is best guaranteed by the quality of those offering that advice. As I said when I moved the amendment, it is critical that both the people giving and receiving the advice are made aware of all the options and the implications for subsequent employment opportunities.
To that end, I will go with the Minister as far as to say that I have little doubt that he believes in vocational education as strongly as I do. I hope that by the end of our considerations, he will share a faith in A-levels with a similar passion to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. If we can reach the balance in Government that we already have in Opposition, we will have travelled a very long way indeed. In hope, rather than expectation, therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Hugh Bayley: Just before we move on the next group of amendments, I heard a mobile phone go off. It may not belong to a member of the Committee—it could have been in the public gallery—but I ask everybody to switch their phones off so that the Committee can concentrate fully on the Bill.

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in clause 66, page 37, line 16, at end insert—
‘(c) any such advice should include encouragement to study one or more GCE ‘A’ level courses provided such courses would be in the best interest of the pupil concerned.’.

Hugh Bayley: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment
No. 48, in clause 66, page 37, line 16, at end add—
‘( ) any such advice should include, where appropriate, advice about studying for a degree course at Oxford or Cambridge universities.’.

John Hayes: This set of amendments is very much on the same theme. Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 suggest that the advice that is given to young people in respect of their educational options should include encouragement to study one or more A-level courses, provided such courses would be in the best interests of the pupil concerned. So it is a “caveated” amendment, because clearly, it would not be in the best interests of all pupils to study one A-level. Indeed, the Minister has alluded to this, so I will rise to the challenge and say that I am strongly in favour of a vocational route with the same rigour, integrity, transparency and accessibility as the well-established academic route.
As I have said, there are doubts about the Government’s commitment to A-levels, and, both in the Government’s interest and certainly in the nation’s interest, those doubts should be assuaged. The Government have done themselves no favours in this respect, by introducing the so-called academic diplomas. The Minister said in response to the previous debate that “he was a great advocate of vocational education, so what was I talking about?” That was the gist of what he said, but in a slightly more elegant way—I do not want to undersell him. However, he really should have drawn attention to not vocational diplomas but the academic diplomas, which will be direct competitors to A-levels.

Jim Knight: I hate to seek to correct the hon. Gentleman, especially when he has been so generous in giving way, but we do not recognise such a thing as “either” academic “or” vocational diplomas. They all will offer both.

John Hayes: It is the tragedy of the Government’s unwillingness to accept the integrity of vocational learning, that, in their view, to have legitimacy the subjects must be academicised. The Government have so little faith in practical competence, so little belief in the idea that the acquisition of practical skills could deliver individual worth and do good for the country, that they have to dress them up as quasi-academic qualifications. I do not buy that any more than William Morris or John Ruskin would have bought it, both of whom the Ministers should see as people who inspired their side of politics when it was a more noble thing than it is now.
The Minister does himself no favours when he admits that the qualifications will not be rigorous, vocational ones, but some kind of halfway house between practical and academic subjects. That is why we have tabled the amendments. If people want to study an academic subject, it is much better that they go by an academic route towards well-established, highly-regarded, already-accepted A-levels—accepted by both the world of work and the world of learning.
The second amendment deals with Oxbridge. That is an interesting subject about which I have interesting things to say. The Minister is a product of Cambridge university. With the greatest respect, Mr. Bayley, I am not so sure that you are not yourself an Oxbridge graduate.

Hugh Bayley: I am not to be brought into the debate.

John Hayes: I am from a red brick university and am proud of that. The university of Nottingham is an Ivy League red brick university, but it is not Oxbridge. Nevertheless, I am more than happy to emphasis that Oxford and Cambridge universities are widely regarded as being among the best in the world. Yet, we read once again in The Times—the Minister has said that he is not a great fan of The Times —that there are alarming misconceptions in state schools about the opportunities that exist for pupils at Oxbridge. It said:
“The MORI survey of 500 teachers was commissioned by the Sutton Trust, an educational charity committed to increasing university intake from deprived backgrounds. It found that nine in ten teachers underestimated the number of Oxbridge students from state schools. Sixty per cent. thought that fewer than 30 per cent. of Oxford and Cambridge students were from state schools. The correct figure is 54 per cent.
More than half thought that it was more expensive to study at Oxbridge, although both charge the same tuition fees as most other English universities, and offer generous bursaries.”
The take-up of bursaries is a problem, however, which it is not appropriate to go into now.
Most disturbingly, and highly relevant to the amendment is the fact that while 54 per cent. of teachers said that they always or usually encouraged their most able and gifted children to apply to Oxford or Cambridge, 25 per cent. of the teachers surveyed said that they would very rarely do so.

Angela Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that among the group at which the legislation is aimed—the 10 per cent. least likely to go on to further education—there might be individuals who have been disaffected at school for any one of a number of reasons, but who are extremely able and if given the right encouragement could catch up and so should aspire to just the sort of course that he is mentioning?

John Hayes: Absolutely. It is vital that we broaden access to higher education and my hon. Friend is a persuasive advocate of that cause. The Government and the Opposition share that objective, but access should be broadened not by imposing curious sociological targets on universities, but by providing the right information and support to young people early on about the opportunities that are available. If young people’s expectations are changed, mountains can be moved. If we combine that with a more creative approach to modes of learning—part-time study, modular study and so on—we can broaden access in a much more effective way than we are doing now.
Amendment No. 48 states that any advice offered in respect of the obligations in the Bill should include, where appropriate, advice about studying for a degree course at Oxford or Cambridge. Much more must be done to dispel the myth, which is prevalent among many young people and, according to the study that I have described, among many others including those who are advising young people, that Oxbridge is for the very few and are not the sorts of places that disadvantaged young people should aim to go to, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster mentioned. I think that this amendment will at least oblige the Minister to consider that. If it is pressed, it could have a legislative effect. However, at this stage let it be taken as a means of doing the former, not the latter.

Stephen Williams: I shall speak briefly to amendments Nos. 47 and 48. Despite what the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said about the parity of esteem that exists in his own mind between vocational and more traditional academic courses, that is not the signal that is sent by the amendment. There is a lack of consistency compared with his normal logical strain of argument.
Despite his mention of William Morris and his interest in arts and crafts—perhaps he should have mentioned Pugin in this setting—I find it rather strange that the hon. Gentleman is asking to put in the Bill the deliberate promotion of one course of study that is open for somebody aged 16. If that proposal was framed in the legislation, it would suggest that that course is held in higher esteem than all other courses open to young people now and in 2013 when the provisions will become law. I have heard him talk many times with passion and interest about apprenticeships and diplomas, which is probably quite out of character compared with most of his colleagues, so I am rather surprised that he is seeking to promote one course of study over another in the amendment.
I have more sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve with amendment No. 48. I would have even more sympathy if he had included Bristol and Nottingham and not just Oxford and Cambridge in the proposal.

John Hayes: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to discuss his sympathies, I wish to ease his doubts about supporting the amendment. I remind him that it specifically talks about the course being
“in best interest of the pupil concerned.”
It is worded in that way precisely because it is not in the interests of all pupils to go down that route.

Stephen Williams: I had noted that caveat. I read the amendment several times, and I wished to support it—we have been fairly consensual so far. However, if such a caveat were in the Bill, it would send the wrong signal to young people at 16 that a course of study should be specifically promoted over and above all other level 3 alternatives that will be available by 2013, when compulsion kicks in.
Amendment No. 48 would promote Oxford and Cambridge universities. I would perhaps have more sympathy if it promoted my own university, Bristol, or the hon. Gentleman’s, Nottingham. There is still a mystery, Mr. Bayley, as to where you went, but I gather that you are not going to enlighten us on that. Perhaps it was York, which is a fine university.
I am sure that we agree that the advice that should be offered to young people of whatever age should be as aspirational as possible to ensure that they aim high and that they are stretched to their full potential. They might not spot that potential in themselves, and perhaps some of their teachers or their own family would not spot it. However, quite often—the hon. Gentleman is right whether he is citing The Times or any other source—young people are held back not by their own limitations, but by the limitations that are placed upon them, perhaps by the community that they come from or because of their family background.
I have some empathy. As the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee may know, I come from a deprived community in south Wales. My father was road worker and my mother was the school dinner lady. It was considered almost heresy in my school in the south Wales valleys when I rebelled against what was traditionally expected and applied to English universities. The teaching staff in my school had been to either Swansea or Aberystwyth. They are undoubtedly fine establishments—I do not wish to denigrate them in any sense whatever—but if I had gone to Swansea or Cardiff, I might have had to live at home. Part of the attraction for me at the time was going away from home to study at another institution and at a top-rated history department, which Bristol university certainly had. The advice and support that I got at the time was sorely lacking. That was 20 years ago, so I hope that the situation now would be different for somebody in similar circumstances.
We hear—perhaps from research from the Sutton Trust to which the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings alluded—that young people can be held back by a lack of encouragement; encouragement that they need if they are to see those dreaming spires that they might not otherwise recognise. Ironically, when I was at school, the only teacher who really encouraged me to apply over the border to Oxford was the needlework teacher—her brother had been to Oxford. It will not surprise people to learn that I did not take needlework myself; I am vocationally self-taught in such matters—being single, I had to be. Seriously, that was the only encouragement that I was given. None the less, I ended up at Bristol university, which certainly changed my life for the better.
Twenty years on there are still some serious issues. We have discussed them, so I shall not go too far down this path, but when we discuss widening participation or higher education in general in the Chamber, we find that there are still some serious issues about the intake at some of our top research-intensive universities. I have some sympathy with the amendment, but I wonder whether it is right to put the measure in the Bill.

Jim Knight: What a fascinating debate it has been reliving the student days of members of the Committee. I obviously agree with the intention—when I judge it charitably—behind the amendments, but I would argue that they are unnecessary. I should say in passing that I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Bristol, West disagree with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, because I had begun to worry that the Opposition parties were joined at the hip on the Bill. To hear some disagreement is healthy.
The amendment is designed to ensure that schools specifically promote the take-up of A-levels if they are in the child’s best interest. It is unnecessary. A-levels are one of the range of options on which the young person would be provided with information. Under the clause as drafted, if the careers adviser believed that A-levels were in the young person’s best interests, they would already be required to advise them of that.
I fear that the reality behind the amendment is that Opposition Members are seeking to anticipate the 2013 review, which the Government are doggedly refusing to anticipate. We remain impartial. Opposition Members have made it perfectly clear on a number of occasions that they are partial in respect of the future of A-levels, so they want to make explicit provision for A-levels in the Bill. I disagree: it is important that we approach the review with an open mind. I will therefore resist the amendment if it is pressed, but I respectfully ask the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to withdraw it. Incidentally, I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol, West that it is inappropriate to promote one qualification over others in the Bill.
Regarding advice on studying at Oxford or Cambridge, that will, of course, be one option available to the highest-achieving young people and will, I hope, remain an attractive option, as has always been the case. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings was right: I studied at one of those two universities. I was the product, first, of an independent school. One of that school’s reasons for being appeared to be to get as many people as possible into Oxford or Cambridge. In relation to getting sufficient numbers of people from state schools and poorer backgrounds into those universities, I think that the ambition of the school is as much a part of the problem as the efforts of the universities themselves to attract and admit those sorts of young people. I was delighted, when I studied at Cambridge university, to meet the person who is now my wife, who was the first person from her institution to get into either Oxford or Cambridge and who had a very different educational background from mine.

Oliver Heald: I am wondering to what extent the type of advice that we are talking about would cover the advice that schools of the type that the Minister attended give their sixth formers on applying to Oxbridge. It is quite a complicated process. There are many interviews, which need to be tackled in a particular way, and so on, as he will know. Will that type of advice and guidance be given in further education colleges and similar places? It is very hard to get into Oxbridge colleges unless someone has had that little bit of extra training on what they are looking for in interviews and, indeed, the whole process.

Jim Knight: We certainly expect the impartial advice that young people receive from schools and other institutions to reflect both ambition and familiarity with the systems of application for Oxford and Cambridge or any other university or higher education institution, so that every young person is given an equal chance of successfully applying and competing on the basis of their achievements rather than their background. The state-maintained school that my son attends does a very good job in that respect. It works very hard at offering trips for young people to both Oxford and Cambridge to enable them to become more familiar with those universities and to feel that they could be a part of their lives, rather than something that is very distant from them and is for different sorts of young people.

John Hayes: Will the Minister say something about the mentoring that that implies? As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire suggested, children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds often have the additional disadvantage of not having parents who have been through the process. The middle-class child not only has a school environment that is supportive of such an opportunity, as the Minister suggested, but will commonly have a familial link to education that is not enjoyed by working-class children who might well have the potential to enjoy going to Oxford or Cambridge.

Jim Knight: It is probably common sense that the more it is familiar and normal for young people, through the experience of their friends, family, parents and teachers, to have accessed the full range of universities, the more their sights and ambitions are set at the appropriate level rather than being artificially capped.
The proportion of students entering higher education from state schools has risen in the last 10 years from 81 per cent in 1997 to 86.9 per cent. in 2005. I am sure that it has increased further since then. The statistics for the lower socio-economic class backgrounds, show that participation in higher education has risen from 27.9 per cent. in 2002 to 29.1 per cent. in 2005. That implies that there are more families who are experiencing higher education who can then pass on that experience and that expectation to their children.

Nick Gibb: I am sure that that is correct. But what does the Minister think about the staggering survey which showed that 45 per cent. of teachers either rarely or never recommend pupils in their schools to apply to Oxbridge? I know of comprehensives with 2,000 students that send nobody, or perhaps one pupil who has parents who are very keen on Oxford or Cambridge, to those universities. But 45 per cent. of teachers rarely or never make such a recommendation and a fifth of teachers would never encourage a bright pupil to apply to Oxford or Cambridge. What is the Minister’s opinion on why teachers would hold such a view?

Jim Knight: As I have said, there is more that schools need to do and that those who work in schools should do to raise the ambitions and sights of young people. I do not want into be drawn, or even distracted, into thinking too much about why such a large proportion of teachers in that survey seemed to have ruled out Oxford and Cambridge for their young people. I certainly would not condone it. If it is an appropriate choice for young people, whatever their background and whatever school they are attending, that choice should be promoted as an option for them.
The purpose of the clause is not to prevent teachers from promoting any particular option or to force them to promote any other option, but rather to ensure that the advice and information given to pupils in each case has at its heart the pupil’s best interests. I therefore believe that the amendments are unnecessary as their intent is already covered in the clause as drafted. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes: We have had a good debate about the importance of extending opportunity to all kinds of young people and the need to make available to them high-quality advice about the opportunities at Oxford and Cambridge universities. We have also discussed the need to advise them on the right route to take in terms of A-levels or otherwise leading to opportunities in higher education or elsewhere. These were probing amendments designed to highlight the concerns that I have articulated and the concerns reflected by some of the evidence that my hon. Friends and I have brought to the Committee’s attention today.
Having made the point, I acknowledge that it would probably be wrong to put this information into a Bill. It is very specific. As the hon. Member for Bristol, West argued, it might be something that would be included in guidance, particularly in relation to the second of the amendments. I hope that the Minister will consider that. The survey data which my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and I cited are compelling. It may mean that we have to soup up the guidance to schools about offering Oxford and Cambridge as an option to those children whose families would not typically have a knowledge or understanding of those options and who would not historically have enjoyed a close relationship with those colleges.

Jim Knight: All I want to say is that the reason I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment and why I would not consider naming a specific university in the Bill is that I do not want a situation where a teacher advising a young person on careers almost has to tick a box and say, “The law says that I am supposed to think about whether or not you are going to Oxford or Cambridge,” and then they give an answer. I do not think that is the right approach. We need to change the culture, and I do not think that we will do that just by naming individual institutions in legislation.

John Hayes: I acknowledge the sense of that comment. However, we need to reflect closely and carefully on how we can counter some of the misapprehensions that are clearly abroad about the opportunities on offer at Oxford and Cambridge universities, so that we can ensure that all those children with the potential to do so can enjoy the very best chances. Notwithstanding that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nia Griffith: I beg to move amendment No. 206, in clause 66, page 37, line 16, at end insert—
‘(c) any such advice must challenge gender stereotypes.’.
Thank you, Mr. Bayley, for the opportunity to speak to this amendment, which is designed to ensure that those involved in giving advice to young people not only avoid gender stereotyping in giving their advice, but actively challenge gender stereotyping and ensure that young people, both young men and young women, consider all the options available to young people with their qualifications and experience. Young people should be encouraged to consider all the options, both those in what are traditionally thought of as male jobs and those in what are traditionally thought of as female jobs.
When the institutions involved have probably signed up to equal opportunities principles, why is it necessary to challenge gender stereotypes? The Committee has heard evidence from the further education sector that, in some schools, there can be a tendency to push the type of courses provided by that school; indeed, we have been debating that precise point just now. That may happen even though it may not be in the best interests of the pupils.
I think that there are two reasons why that happens. It may be a conscious effort to boost the numbers in the school, so that people stay on in that school and take the courses available there. In many respects, one can understand the legitimacy of a teacher pushing their own subject area and wanting to encourage and inspire pupils. However, to ensure that the advice given is impartial, each institution should ensure that the opportunities are there for young people to meet with and speak to advisers, lecturers, tutors and so on coming from other institutions, who can put in front of them the full range of options.
I also think that this type of academic-focused advice sometimes happens unconsciously; it is simply a matter of people reiterating their own experiences. Those who have only ever been in a school environment, an A-level environment and a university environment will inevitably have some difficulty in talking to young people about the many other options that could be available to them.
It is very easy to forget that it is not just the careers adviser and the careers interview that has an influence on the young person. The young person also comes into contact with form tutors, personal tutors, mentors, parents and other adults in their lives, who will all have a significant influence on them. Of course, it is precisely for that reason that clause 66 emphasises the importance of having information presented in an impartial manner.
Naturally, we are influenced by our own experiences and what we have seen around us. I must tell the Committee that I was quite shocked to hear the hon. Member for Bristol, West suggest that he needed needlework because he was single and that if he were not single he would no longer need to sew anything. That certainly suggests to me that he was a product of that Welsh “mam” who spoilt her son rotten and never expected him to do anything at all in the house.

Stephen Williams: I am not sure if I should say this. The hon. Lady probably does not know much about my biography, but I would not be marrying a woman.

Nia Griffith: I shall continue to talk about the way that our own experiences influence us. It is very important to be aware of the fact that we all tend to reiterate the things that we have seen around us. Of course, that can have very serious consequences for our young people.
I would like to give you an example of a training exercise that I have carried out with numerous teachers over the past few years. Surprisingly, even in recent times, the results do not seem to be very different from what they might have been 20 years ago. In this exercise I give out a CV of a fictitious young person and I ask the participants in the course to suggest what suitable courses and jobs they would offer to the young person. Shockingly, depending on whether you give the fictitious young person a distinctively male or distinctively female name, the list provided by the participants in the course tends to vary extremely. In other words, if you tell them it is a boy, they will give you one set of suitable options; if you tell them it is a girl they will give you a completely different set. That is illustrative of the situation we find ourselves in at the moment. Although we are striving to create equal opportunities, in practice we still bear the prejudices that we have been brought up with.

Oliver Heald: Is the hon. Lady not confusing two things? Obviously equal opportunities is absolutely crucial, but is it not the case that girls may want to do some things in a job that boys do not want to do and vice versa? It may be that we are different.

Nia Griffith: What is important is that all the options are presented to every young person, because what often happens is that young people are bundled into one area or another. Some of the research by the Equal Opportunities Commission suggests that many young women are shipped into placements in areas such as child care even if they have never expressed an interest in child care. Likewise, young men are shipped into various placements in manual work in semi-skilled or unskilled jobs when they have never expressed any interest in those types of work. Because we have prejudices and because we all know that we come from a certain background and we have seen certain things in our lives, it is important that we make that extra effort to put things on an even keel and say to young people that they can equally well do this or that.
Young people will also be subject to a fair amount of peer-group pressure which will pressurise them into taking options which are stereotypical. It is very difficult sometimes to be one of two or three women in a very macho male environment or, conversely, to be one of two or three men in a very female environment. That can lead to bullying and other difficulties. It is important that we send a positive message about choosing options—a message that a young person should choose whichever option they genuinely want to do, rather than something that merely reflects other people’s expectations. Just as we want young people to aim high, we want them to challenge some of the stereotypes that they have been brought up with. As the clause requires, we want to give pupils the advice which will promote their best interests.
The problem is that so many people influence young people. It is not just careers advisers. There is a training issue here for the many adults who are in various ways involved with the 16 to 18-year-old group, including the various support agencies and the people in both the educational world and the voluntary sector, to make sure that we try to combat gender stereotyping.

Nick Gibb: Does the hon. Lady share my view that we should be optimistic about this problem? When I joined KPMG in 1984, there was one woman partner out of several hundred partners. Now at that firm, just 23 years later, the majority of new trainee chartered accountants are women and there are thousands of female partners at KPMG. That is the continuing trend. I am therefore optimistic about the future, though I share the hon. Lady’s concerns.

Nia Griffith: If we are going to reminisce on our own experiences as we seem to have been doing in this Committee, I would say that at the institution I attended, when I attended it, only one fifth of the places available there were open to women. We have come a very long way. In many respects the progress has been made largely in white collar areas of work. Where we are really falling down is on what one might call the more industrial side, the trade side, or the more working-class side, where there tends to be far more pressure on young people to conform to stereotypes, and where there is far less confidence to break through the barriers. I think that is why, particularly in respect of the 16 to 18-year-olds we have been talking about, we really need to push the boat out and challenge gender stereotypes.
I am talking about the young women who do not have the confidence to say, “I am as good as any man,” or—for a man looking at a more female-type job—“I can do this just as well as a woman.” It is very important that we give them those opportunities, and that we do not just say, “Oh well, what do we do with this one? Let’s shove her into this option, because that is what we have done with girls before.” That is what I think we are trying to challenge in the Bill and in this clause in particular. It is a serious issue, which affects not only the choices young people start off with, but their whole life, because so much of our pay structures are clearly linked to initial options that people take in courses and jobs.
We have had equal pay legislation for some time, but we are still seeing the problem of an enormous pay gap, quite simply because those jobs known as traditionally male jobs very often attract better wages than those known as traditionally female jobs. I have, over the course of many years, met many women who have simply not pursued skills, training and careers in trades and technological areas, because they were steered away from them.
This problem has been particularly highlighted by the YWCA, which does excellent work with some of our most disadvantaged young women. It is not easy to be one of the only two or three in an environment, and that is why it is important that we work towards achieving critical mass and give young people proper opportunities to take part in placements where they feel they are with a good mix of male and female, rather than with two or three females in a big male macho environment, or vice versa.
Although we have made progress, it is very worrying that some very recent research, done in 2005 by the Equal Opportunities Commission, has shown that we are still directing young people in very stereotypical ways. For this reason, the amendment is very important. It is absolutely essential that guidance and training on the implementation of the Bill should include guidance on how to tackle gender stereotyping and how to give advice that is genuinely in young people’s best interests.

Angela Watkinson: I find that I jumped to completely the wrong conclusion when I first read the amendment, because I thought it referred to the gender stereotyping of the young people themselves. Having listened to the hon. Lady’s presentation of the amendment, I realise she is referring to gender stereotyping among teachers and careers advisers, which rather dismays me. I recall the only careers advice I ever received at my co-educational grammar school. One day the girls were all herded into the hall and told that there were only two respectable occupations for girls: teaching and nursing. Anyone who did not choose either was considered to be a lost cause.
I rejected that advice. So did my youngest daughter, who is a member of the London fire brigade, and has been for about 10 years. A more male-dominated working environment one could not imagine. She is also very philosophical and of independent thought. That is an example of an occupation which is unlikely ever to attract 50:50 applications from men and women, simply because it is a job that does not appeal to large numbers of women. It also requires a lot of physical strength, which some women could not achieve. We would not say that all men are physically stronger than all women, but it is probably true to say that most men are physically stronger than most women. My daughter is 6 ft tall and well able to do the job. She has survived in a very male-dominated environment. I am the only woman in the Opposition Whips Office, so I, too, am used to dealing with a male-dominated environment.
I was extremely dismayed to hear the hon. Member for Llanelli. I wondered why she felt it necessary to have “must” in the Bill. Would “may” not meet the requirements? However, I started with the bare presumption that it was the students themselves who were limiting their own opportunities by not looking more widely at the whole range of career of possibilities. I changed my mind while the hon. Lady was speaking. I hope that all teachers and Connexions advisers will ensure that all ranges of opportunities are made available to young people, including things that they might not normally have considered. There may be predisposition in the genders towards certain careers, but the opportunities should be as wide as possible. I thank the hon. Lady for tabling the amendment.

Peter Soulsby: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli and to respond to the comments of the hon. Member for Upminster. The gender stereotyping that needs to be challenged is encountered both in young people themselves and, in some cases, sadly, in those who advise them. Others have talked about personal experience; I speak as the father of three girls. I was angered and saddened when my eldest daughter was advised, not that long ago, that physics was not something to be studied by a girl. Frankly, she was in the position—confident enough, coming from a middle-class background—to be able to challenge that and to go on and successfully take a physics degree. However, it might have been very different had she not come from that sort of background, had she not had that sort of confidence and had she wanted, for example, to take up a building apprenticeship. She may well not have had the confidence to ignore the advice that she was given and, to some extent, the peer pressure that was there as well, which stereotyped that degree as unlikely to be appropriate for her as a girl.
Gender stereotyping is often as much a problem for boys as it can be for girls. It can limit what boys and those who advise them see as appropriate career options as much as it can girls. In education, we only have to look at the comparatively small proportion of primary school teachers who are male to recognise that gender stereotyping can cut both ways.
I very much hope that the Minister will give a sympathetic hearing to the amendment. If he cannot accept the amendment, he might at least assure us that the guidance, which will go with the Bill once enacted, will give clear encouragement to all involved in advising young people not just to avoid gender stereotyping, but to challenge it.

Oliver Heald: When I intervened on the hon. Member for Llanelli, I had misunderstood her point. As her remarks continued, I found that I agreed with them.

Stephen Williams: Despite the hon. Lady teasing me about the teacher at my school who was a needlework teacher—I nearly said my needlework teacher—I have considerable sympathy with her amendment.
In my role, I get to visit lots of universities and further education colleges. When I visit universities, it is very apparent to me that 57 per cent. of undergraduates now are female. The medical profession, the accountancy profession—which the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton mentioned earlier—and the legal profession will in the future be dominated by women. That is a marvellous thing.
When visiting further education colleges, however, what with usually being shown the bricklaying or plumbing courses and the hairdressing salon, it is noticeable that gender stereotypes are certainly active. They do not usually have much luck suggesting services to me in the hairdressing salon—probably not to the Minister for Schools either. They often offer to wax my legs, which I have had to decline many times. Gender stereotypes seem to have fed their way through into the more vocational courses that people take at further education colleges. If the hon. Lady were to press her amendment, I would support it.

John Hayes: I started my adult life—I remember it well—thinking that men and women were probably more alike than was generally supposed. Having reached the age of 49, I have now concluded that men and women are probably less alike than people generally suppose. That is reflected in the choices they make and the aptitudes they have.
The hon. Member for Llanelli has tabled a useful amendment, on which we have had a useful debate. What is absolutely clear is that the options available should not be tarnished by prejudice. However, we should not be surprised if, even with the sort of objectivity that the hon. Lady wants in the advice that is offered, a preponderance of one gender or the other go in a particular direction. I want to ensure that if women choose to be bricklayers, plumbers, or any of the other jobs that are usually mentioned in such discussions, there should be no bar to them, and we should celebrate that fact. Similarly, if men want to go down one of the roads that stereotypically tends to be associated with women, there should not be any restriction or bar to their so doing. None the less, I would not be surprised if, notwithstanding that, there were differences in the numbers involved in different professions based around their gender, nor would I be even slightly worried about it.

Nia Griffith: Does the hon. Gentleman think that that is perhaps what people thought about medicine years ago—that it was something that only men did, and that women would never do?

John Hayes: My deafness is so profound today that I did not pick up a word of that. I am sure that it was extremely apposite to the debate and my contribution to it.
The only other comment I wish to make is that in making such advice available, it is critical that we take account of expectations, which we discussed earlier. It is likely that expectations are set much earlier than the point at which people reach college at 16-plus. They are often formed in primary school. You and the Minister will be pleased to know, Mr. Bayley, that my seven-year-old son wants to go to Trinity college, Cambridge. That is because we live in the fens, and Cambridge is in the fens. He does not want to have to stay in college for hot dinners. He wants to come home and have his story and be tucked in at night. He knows that if he goes to a different university that might not happen. He has already set out his ambition. Whether he can achieve it with our help remains to be seen.
That illustrates the fact that children get ideas very early. Those ideas may be gender reinforced at primary and secondary school. Therefore, even if the amendment were successful and the spirit which inspired it were to be reflected in what happens in schools, there are other issues which have a bearing on the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Llanelli and others in its pursuit. I believe that all those with potential should be able to fulfil it and not be prevented from so doing by the prejudices around gender. I am completely confident and entirely happy that men, because they are men, will tend to choose one direction and ladies a different one. That is the way the world is and the way that I want it to be.

Jim Knight: What a wonderful debate, led by an excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South. We heard the hon. Member for Bristol, West waxing lyrical briefly and, having had concerns earlier in our deliberations about the personal details of Mrs. Hayes, we have probably now heard more personal details about Hayes Junior than he would like to be on the public record if his classmates were to read the Committee’s proceedings.
Naturally, I completely agree with the intention behind my hon. Friend’s amendment and I welcome the opportunity to discuss this important issue, which I have also discussed with the YWCA. It is often the case that the sectors that pay the highest wages, provide the most hours of training and have the best future job prospects are those that are overwhelmingly male-dominated. At the same time, we know that there is an urgent need for more men to enter traditionally female careers, such a child care. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South made that point well. The Connexions service and schools, as well as employers and parents, have a role to play in providing young people with information and guidance about future career choices. As the Secretary of State outlined on Second Reading, it is important that young people have the chance to consider all the options. For example, evidence shows that many potential apprentices make stereotypical choices and tend to be influenced by tradition and peer pressure in terms of the industries in which they work.
The needs of a modern economy are such that we cannot afford for the talents of young people to be closed off because of stereotyping. This is an extremely important issue and we want to ensure that, as we raise the education leaving age, the problem is tackled head on. Traditional gender stereotypes and other stereotypes, such as those concerning race or sexual orientation, must be broken down if they stop young people fulfilling their potential.
However—there is always a “however”—although I agree with the intention, I do not think that the amendment is necessary. As well as requiring schools to deliver impartial careers advice that provides young people with information on the full range of options available to them, we are also using clause 66 to introduce a requirement on schools to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The guidance, which was referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Llanelli and for Leicester, South, will include a set of core principles, one of which will state explicitly that students should be helped to challenge all stereotypes and widen their career aspirations. If women want to enter the fire service, they should feel free to do so; it is an honourable tradition. The first female firefighter to die in a fire was Fleur Lombard who died in a fire in Gloucester. Such women, who have provided extraordinarily good service to this country though the fire service, have provided good role models.
Equally, young people should feel free to make choices about diplomas. Next year we will introduce the hair and beauty diploma, which is not one that I will be engaging in, waxing or otherwise. However, some extremely high-earning hairdressers are men and it is a choice that men should think about seriously. I fear that the hair and beauty diploma may be ridiculed by some of our friends in the media as not being substantial in comparison with engineering. That will simply display their prejudice; such views are perhaps also informed by gender prejudice.
In addition, the recently published children’s plan outlines measures to present young people with more exciting and challenging careers education in schools. There will be opportunities such as taster sessions and other experiential learning that will help to open young people’s minds to different ideas and challenge traditional learning and career routes. I hope that this range of measures demonstrates the importance that we attach to the issue. The amendment is unnecessary and I invite my hon. Friend to withdraw it.

Nia Griffith: Listening to the Minister, I understand that his sentiment is genuine and that he has already met organisations such as the YWCA that have highlighted this problem. In the light of his comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Stephen Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 177, in clause 66, page 37, line 18, after ‘“subsection (2B))”;’, insert
‘“( ) In subsection (5)(a) leave out ‘14’ and insert ‘13’”’.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil and I tabled the amendment to provoke a discussion on when will be the appropriate time to offer independent advice and guidance. By 2013 when the legislation will kick in, the educational landscape will be quite different. We presume that there will still be the traditional academic pathway of GCSEs leading through to A-levels, but diplomas, whether they are the original 14 lines or the additional diplomas that the Government have announced, should have been rolled out nationally and there will also be apprenticeships and other vocational pathways for young people to choose from, albeit in a compulsory environment.
The advice given to young people will be crucial, not just at 16, but at a much younger age. I cannot remember whether you were in the Chair, Mr. Bayley, but in the evidence sessions I asked several witnesses, including those representing Connexions, what they felt was the appropriate age at which to start giving full independent advice and guidance to people who will be affected by the legislation. When I asked Connexions directly what was the main focus of its work at the moment, it said that it was 16-year-olds looking forward to leaving compulsory education and deciding whether to follow a career choice or go on to further study. The concentration of its resources is in advising children in year 11.
By 2013, it will be more appropriate to concentrate that advice on children in year 9 because the choices that they make at that stage will require independent and impartial advice. They could be deciding what they will do in years 10 and 11, whether to exercise their choice in another educational setting such as a local college or whether to achieve their diploma through a combination of the two. As we have said during debates on earlier amendments, that advice must exist in every school in the country.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Government can assure us that the full range of independent advice and guidance will be available to students in year 9, who are likely to be aged 13. That advice should be not just on the courses and pathways that are suitable for them, but on the settings so that there is no bias in favour of staying in school if that is what the school advisers want.
During the evidence session, we heard from Connexions that the main focus of its work is currently aimed at 16-year-olds. If the ambitions that the Government have for this legislation and through their support for the Leitch programme are to be achieved, the career and educational choices that people make at age 13 will be crucial. There is no point in giving them that advice when they get to 16 if they have made a wrong decision at 13 because their pathway in life will to a great extent already have been determined.
I am looking for an assurance from the Minister that the focus of the independent advice and guidance that is provided for in the Bill will shift to a lower age. It should still be offered at 16, but also at 13. I am looking for an assurance that sufficient resources will be in place to ensure that Connexions, local authorities and schools are able to provide that vital impartial advice.

Jim Knight: The amendment seeks to extend the relevant phase of a pupil’s education during which he must be provided with a programme of careers education so that it should start from 13, rather than 14, as originally specified in the Education Act 1997. I should make it clear—it is an understandable oversight—that the age range has already been extended in England to include pupils in school years 7 and 8, for 12 and 13-year-olds. That was done by regulations made under section 46 of the 1997 Act: for those who are interested, it was the Education (Extension of Careers Education) (England) Regulations 2003, which came into force on 1 September 2004. That means that section 43 of the 1997 Act, as it currently has effect in England, already includes 13-year-olds in its scope. To that extent, the amendment is unnecessary. Of course, the resources go with the extension of the age period down to year 7, so I hope that that is an adequate answer.

Stephen Williams: I got the impression that the Minister was about to draw his remarks to a close. I hear what he says about regulations that were passed before I became a Member of Parliament, but could he assure me that there will be sufficient emphasis on that early advice in the guidance that his Department prepares for Connexions or whoever provides the independent advice and guidance, because Connexions told us during the evidence sessions that the current set-up is geared mainly towards 16-year-olds and those in year 11?

Jim Knight: It is certainly the case that the activity of the Connexions service does not kick in until someone has reached 13. It is only at that point that they are notified of the individual’s existence through the data transfers that we discussed last Tuesday. However, the wider obligations for careers education, as set out in the Education Act 1997, do apply from year 7, so schools would take forward those obligations. Certainly, the guidance will make it clear that the obligations in law extend from year 7 onwards. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be happy to withdraw his amendment.

John Hayes: I am moved to speak by what both the Minister and the hon. Member for Bristol, West said. I think that the hon. Gentleman made a valid point about the stage at which advice is given, which reflects remarks that we made earlier about choices that are made early and affect people’s subsequent opportunities and options. There is considerable evidence to suggest that there is a paucity of advice in schools. It is variable, of course, but I refer particularly to the advice on apprenticeships from the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, which I have quoted a number of times. It states that
“by ignorance of or indifference to apprenticeship opportunities in schools,”
young people are often not given the information from which they would benefit. It stated that Connexions
“is failing to reach a great many of those who need its services”
and
“should explain the advantages of vocational...education”
in schools. It also suggested that
“Special attention should be paid to informing girls about non-traditional apprenticeships and to providing information on earnings in different sectors.”
That was reflected in the debate on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Llanelli. I use that merely as one illustration of the critique that has been made by the hon. Member for Bristol, West and others of advice that is given early, particularly in schools, that does not always fulfil the sort of ambitions that we would want for our young people.
If the Bill is to work, we have to soup up that advice, improve its quality and ensure that it is consistent and appropriate. That may mean that Connexions has to refocus some of its energy—the hon. Gentleman is right about that, too—because most of its work tends to be focused on post-16.
As the House of Lords Select Committee and others have argued, Connexions penetration of schools is limited and, as I suggested earlier today, it may mean rethinking our whole approach to careers advice and guidance in the longer term rather than relying on Connexions. That might mean having an all-age careers service alongside Connexions, as I suggested in debates on earlier aspects of the Bill. At the very least, it would ensure that we give advice that does not preclude opportunities, shut down options or drive people in the wrong direction—all things that happen now.
The amendment may be probing—I do not know—but it is useful, and it covers a subject to which we should return. I am not sure that we have it right in the Bill. When debating these matters this morning, I thought that the Minister was a little complacent about advice and guidance and that he underestimated its significance in the Bill. I have come to the conclusion that unless we can get advice and guidance right most of the other provisions will flounder.
To be fair to the Minister, rather than being indicative of negligence, that complacency may be merely an illustration of the Government’s failure to recognise that the current system for advising and guiding young people—the current careers system—is not up to scratch. Connexions is fine for what it does best, which is providing high-quality and wide-ranging support to those young people who need a multi-faceted approach. I am not sure that it is best at providing high-quality careers advice to the majority of young people who do not need that kind of broad-brush approach, and I am not sure that it is as effective as it might be in the early years to which the hon. Member for Bristol, West pays attention in his amendment. It is a pity that the Minister was not more comprehensive in his winding up, but it is for the hon. Gentleman to decide what to do next.

Stephen Williams: First, I thank the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings for agreeing with the underlying purpose of the amendment. I heard the Minister’s assurances—he cited various regulations—that everything that is necessary is already in place. The purpose of the amendment was simply to get on the record the fact that the Government recognise that if the legislation is to succeed, full and independent advice needs to be offered much earlier in the young person’s educational journey.
I think that the Minister was giving me that assurance, although he seemed to be hiding behind regulations that he said would already achieve that aim. None the less, during our evidence sittings, we heard full confidence being expressed in the fact that people are adhering to those regulations. However, we still have some years to ensure that we get it right. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 59, in clause 66, page 38, line 4, leave out ‘must’ and insert ‘may’.
The amendment is straightforward enough. Clause 66(4) is about discharging a relevant duty; the schools
“must...have regard to guidance to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.”
There is a subtle but important difference between “must” and “may”. “Must” implies that the Government will tell schools and teachers—the professionals—exactly what they should do and how they should do it. “May” represents the Government facilitating good practice throughout instead of forcing the great, clunking, centralising Labour fist—that is what I have written in my notes; it is a rather partisan remark. When preparing for this debate, I must have been feeling rather spiteful, which is unusual. [Laughter.]
We are also concerned that, by insisting on the word “must”,
“in discharging the duty, have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State”,
the Government are forcing schools to comply with short-term headline-grabbing policies, rather than ones improving the advice and guidance given to students. The amendment allows schools and advisers breathing space, without harming the possibility for pupils to receive full and impartial careers advice.

Jim Knight: We believe that the duty to have regard to the guidance is vital to support the schools in delivering the impartiality requirement and to raise standards in careers education, which is something that we all agree is necessary and desirable. In practice, schools could disregard the guidance, as long as they met the duty to provide impartial careers advice. If, however, they disregarded the guidance and were subsequently found to be failing in their duty, it is likely that questions would be asked as to why they had chosen not to follow it. In many ways, the amendment is therefore unnecessary.
I wish to ensure that schools are under a duty to have regard to guidance that includes a set of core principles. That has been supported by key stakeholders we consulted on the Bill. Along with other measures, I believe that it will drive up quality so that students receive high-quality and impartial careers advice and information. On the basis of my assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will withdraw his amendment.

John Hayes: The Minister’s fist is never clunking. At most, it is the fist of an accomplished and subtle pugilist. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 67

Apprenticeships: functions of Learning and Skills Council for England

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in clause 67, page 38, line 15, leave out ‘contract of employment or a’.

Hugh Bayley: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 50, in clause 67, page 38, line 19, leave out ‘contract of employment or a’.
No. 51, in clause 67, page 38, line 26, leave out paragraph (b).

John Hayes: The amendments relate to clause 67, which, as the explanatory notes state, amends sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 to ensure that the Learning and Skills Council
“is under a duty to provide proper facilities for apprenticeships for 16 to 18 year olds and reasonable facilities to those over the age of 19...The wording of the clause makes clear that it covers both employment under a traditional contract of apprenticeship with an employer, and the modern form of apprenticeships with the involvement of a separate training provider as well as an employer.”
The intention of the amendments is to ensure a return to traditional employer-based apprenticeships, rather than apprenticeships based with an independent training provider. We believe that all apprenticeships should be employer-based.
The Government recently published a review of the apprenticeship system, and the Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, the hon. Member for Tottenham, and I have already had some exchanges on the matter. I presume that he will speak at some length on the clause, as it is important to the success of the Bill. He knows that I welcome some aspects of that review, not least because it responds to criticisms of the system—made not only by me, I hasten to add. It is helpful that it redefines what should comprise an apprenticeship with a stronger emphasis on mentoring, workplace-based training and, indeed, employer engagement of the kind that I just mentioned. Although some of the detailed recommendations in the review are welcome, my criticism is that it will reinforce the Government’s bureaucratic approach to the provision of skills training. The Under-Secretary, whom I imagine will respond to the debate on this group of amendments, knows that my central criticism is that by reinforcing the role of the Learning And Skills Council and reducing the role of sector skills councils in the management and funding of apprenticeships and skills more generally, the review, like the rest of Government policy, fails to meet the central charge in the Leitch report that we need a demand-led system.
Lord Leitch made it clear that centrally driven bureaucracy must be streamlined if it is to deliver a system that is more responsive to employer demand, but the review means that most apprenticeships will be delivered by agencies rather than by employers. Essentially, the Government prefer a nationally planned, target-driven approach to the flexible and dynamic training provision that is necessary in an ever more advanced economy. We believe that employers must lead the apprenticeship system if we are to raise the skills level. The continuation of a centrally driven, target-based model will fail to ensure that all apprenticeships result in greater employability, which is the ultimate test of the system’s effectiveness.
It is worth elaborating a little on the scale of the problem that we face in respect of apprenticeships. There is a shortage of apprenticeship places owing to a lack of employer engagement. As a result, the Government have consistently missed their targets for apprenticeship numbers. In 2003, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is now Prime Minister, announced that apprenticeship numbers would rise to 320,000 by 2006. In fact, there were only 239,000 apprentices in training in 2006-07, and numbers are falling. The figures released in December show a decline in apprenticeship numbers at both level 2 and level 3.
At one time, all apprenticeships were a level 3 qualification, equivalent to an A-level. Indeed, most people’s picture of an apprenticeship is of an eager young learner gaining a practical competence at the side of an experienced craftsman that is bound to lead to enhanced employability. Usually, because such apprenticeships were linked directly to an employer, people went straight into a job. Although that is still true of many apprenticeships—there are some excellent apprenticeships abroad—it is not true of all apprenticeships. By changing the badging of training, and calling many things apprenticeships that do not match that traditional model, we have risked the brand. That is why I welcome some parts of the review, which begins to address those concerns.
At the end of the day, the problem with the creation of level 2 and programme-led apprenticeships, is that that has disguised the fact that we are training fewer people at level 3 than we did 10 years ago. The decline in numbers in the past year, which I mentioned, is part of a steady decline in the number of trainees in level 3 apprenticeships. The number of level 2 apprenticeships has grown over the same period, but one wonders how many of those apprenticeships deliver the goods or do what is intended.
Apprenticeships are not what they used to be, and declining employer involvement has meant that many apprenticeships are much more classroom-based and have their origins in the youth training schemes of the past. The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee reported last summer—I have referred to that report a number of times—that most of the increase in apprenticeships over the years is the result of converting Government-supported programmes of work-based learning into apprenticeships. All that new training has been below level 3. Lower-level training has increased at the expense of higher-level training. Of the 239,000 apprentices I mentioned, only 97,000 are at level 3.
The essence of our concerns, as embodied in the amendments, is that the Government have failed to provide an apprenticeship system fit for purpose, largely because of their supply-driven approach. The vast majority of apprenticeships are delivered by training providers rather than by employers. Work-based mentor training is often limited. In its last report, the adult learning inspectorate warned that some apprenticeships could be achieved without the apprentice
“having to set a foot in a workplace”.
The bureaucratic funding mechanism for apprenticeships means that, as the Economic Affairs Committee concluded, employers are
“marginalised at the end of a long chain of administration”.
One expert witness told the Lords inquiry:
“There is a key problem for both the young people and the employers in terms of finding each other...for quite a lot of employers, they do not actually know how to really access the system.”
The apprenticeship review is, in a sense, the final nail in the coffin for the Leitch report. One of Lord Leitch’s key recommendations was that the Government should move forward from a supply-side to a demand-led skills training system. The Leitch report concluded that
“history tells us that supply-side planning of this sort cannot effectively meet the needs of employers, individuals and the economy. The Review recommends a fully demand-led approach, with an end to this supply-side planning of provision.”
Consequently, Lord Leitch recommended that
“planning bodies, such as the LSC...will require a further significant streamlining.”
The review reinforced supply-side planning by proposing the establishment of a national apprenticeship service. That service is part of the Learning and Skills Council’s responsibilities, and the LSC will be responsible for the achievement of the targets set by the Government, including the determination and publication of the strategy for expanding places by region, sector and age group, consistent with the Government’s published national plans. Such an approach is not consistent with a demand-led system.
We must be bolder in responding to local and sectoral demand as required, rather than simply working a system around a series of national, predefined, Government-set targets. I am not sure that the Government have even begun to grapple with that problem. The Leitch review recommended a much larger role for sector skills councils, which would be part of the demand-led system that Lord Leitch described, and which I support. Leitch argued that the councils should be responsible for approving vocational qualifications, as well as taking a lead role in collating and communicating sectoral and labour-market needs.
Following the apprenticeship review, the National Apprenticeship Service—in other words, the Learning and Skills Council—will be responsible for determining the qualification level of apprenticeships. The role of sector skills councils will be reduced, and their role in funding, commissioning and managing information on apprenticeships will be taken away. The creation of the National Apprenticeship Service adds to the confusing array of organisations with overlapping responsibilities that crowd the skills sector. The NAS will be responsible for a national information and marketing service for apprenticeships, which will exist in addition to the careers and training advice provided by schools and colleges, local authorities through Connexions, and the proposed adult careers service and skills brokers to be introduced as part of Train to Gain.
In 2001, the Cassels review of apprenticeships recommended that the system be led by employers, with training providers acting only as apprenticeship agents with a clearly defined role. In 2002, the LSC accepted that recommendation but it was never implemented. The notion that training providers are better placed to deal with those matters than employers themselves is fanciful. Under the apprenticeship review, training providers will continue to have responsibility for co-ordinating apprenticeships, which means that employers will be marginalised at the end of a long chain of administration. As an aside, with your indulgence, Mr. Bayley, the review says very little about the further education sector, which is still waiting for deregulation, years after the Foster report, which preceded the Leitch review, recommended that FE colleges be set free with a radical programme of deregulation—a view which I enthusiastically support.
The amendments are essential for two reasons. First, apprenticeships are central to driving up the national skills level, as the current system is simply not fit for purpose. Secondly, although I acknowledge that the Government have taken steps towards addressing the problems in the apprenticeship system and I recognise the Minister’s personal commitment to doing so, I still do not think that they have grasped the core message that lies at the heart of all of the reviews of the apprenticeship system and of the Leitch report, which is that we need to move to a less bureaucratic, less target- driven, less centralised and more responsive system, with employers in the driving seat and sector skills councils, which are employer-focused, playing a critical role.
Unless we do so, we will not get the apprenticeship system that we need and deserve. Without that, the Bill will falter, because many of the young people we want to engage should be travelling down the route through an apprenticeship to employment. I believe passionately in the principle of apprenticeships, and I know that the Minister does, too. I just want to have a frank debate—a non-partisan debate, in fact—about how we can get apprenticeships right. I do not claim to have all the answers, but I am certain that the system must reflect genuine employment need and the best way to determine and deliver that objective is to have employers as the central component in the system.

David Lammy: I am pleased to be able to take over from my hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and Learners to talk about apprenticeships. The last time I was in your constituency, Mr. Bayley, I was looking at apprenticeships at York Minster. I am pleased, too, that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has come closer to the Government position on apprenticeships since the publication of the apprenticeship review. I agree with him that this should be a non-partisan issue on which we can agree. I set my comments very much in the context of the apprenticeship review, which was in turn informed by our plans to raise the participation age following the Leitch review on skills and the introduction of an entitlement to an apprenticeship place for every suitably qualified young person in 2013.
Clause 67 is a small but important step in moving towards our ambitions for the apprenticeships programme, including the apprenticeship entitlement. Apprenticeships are implicitly included in the Learning and Skills Council’s existing statutory duties, as laid out in sections 2 and 3 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, to secure the provision of facilities for education and training. However, apprenticeships are not mentioned in the legislation, so the clause addresses that omission by making explicit the Learning and Skills Council’s duty to furnish provision for apprenticeships that is the same as the provision for other post-16 education and training options. I hope that everyone welcomes that.
We have had a great deal of debate this afternoon about Oxbridge and independent schools. I am pleased to return to another group of young people who deserve our attention and our efforts to make the system more equitable on their behalf. In the context of raising the participation age, the clause is a signal to the system that the Government are serious about apprenticeships as a route that young people can take to fulfil the duty to participate. The effect of the clause will be to drive the way that the Learning and Skills Council funds provision and engages with employers in meeting the 2013 entitlement. For adults, we are equally clear that apprenticeships form a key part of our response to Sandy Leitch’s recommendations.
The amendments undermine the clarity and intended effect of the clause. Apprenticeships funded by the LSC can involve an individual in a contract of apprenticeship or a contract of employment, and the inclusion in the clause of
“training provided in connection with a contract of employment”
is a recognition of that fact. That does not mean that every employer has to provide training, nor does it imply that every contract of employment must include training provision. It simply means that apprenticeships are covered by the LSC’s duty to secure the provision of facilities for education or training. The majority of people engaged in LSC-funded apprenticeships participate under contracts of employment, rather than contracts of apprenticeship.
To be as comprehensive as possible, the Bill includes both forms of contract, and our intention is to legislate in a forthcoming Bill to remove the legal ambiguity surrounding apprenticeships. The effect of amendments Nos. 49 and 50 would be to remove the duty on the LSC to secure the provision of facilities with regard to apprentices employed under a contract of employment, and I am not sure that is what Opposition Members want. They have stressed many times during our debates and elsewhere their support for apprenticeships as a major route for young people and adults alike. Furthermore, amendment No. 51 would remove one aspect of the clause that is crucial to increasing the number of quality apprenticeships.
Clause 67 provides that the LSC’s role in encouraging employers to participate in training should encompass the kind of situation covered by apprenticeships. That provision will complement the wider measures to engage employers set out in the “World-class Apprenticeships” strategy. May I say very gently to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings that he made an unfounded assertion about workplace provision? I understand his concerns, but I want to reassure him about the position, as he has got this wrong. Apprenticeships and advanced apprenticeships meet the requirements laid down by the modern apprenticeship advisory committee, chaired by Sir John Cassels. Those requirements are that apprenticeships involve on-the-job training; engage a young person to earn while learning, and closely involve employers. As I have explained previously, both in Committee and in the House, people on programme-led apprenticeships are not counted—I repeat, not counted—as being on an apprenticeship until they have a contract with an employer.
The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) will recall the evidence that we heard from the Prince’s Trust, Barnardo’s and other organisations, and I hope that he acknowledges that there is a role for programme-led apprenticeships for young people who are not quite ready for a fully fledged apprenticeship with an employer. Those young people may not have the soft skills that we have discussed in Committee. Nevertheless, they can get on that road with a programme-led apprenticeship. Such apprenticeships are not counted within the figures, but the young person can move on to another apprenticeship for which they are prepared.

John Hayes: I entirely acknowledge that there are many young people unprepared to take up an apprenticeship because of the absence of skills. Indeed, the House of Lords Select Committee report to which I referred earlier says that there are 300,000 such young people, who often lack core and soft skills. However, in respect of work-based training, the adult learning inspectorate warned:
“Some apprentices can potentially achieve the full requirements of the apprenticeship framework without having to set foot in a workplace.”
Why does the Minister think that the inspectorate said that? If I have got the wrong impression about apprenticeships, it has too.

David Lammy: I asked my officials to scour the extensive House of Lords Select Committee report to find that quote. We were able to find expressions of concern that the Adult Learning Inspectorate still had about programme-led apprenticeships, particularly in engineering. However, the suggestion that most apprenticeships do not involve an employer is just wrong. The hon. Gentleman will recall that when I put that suggestion to some of the individuals who gave evidence to the Committee, including the principals and the Campaign for Learning, they were staggered by it and indeed they said that they just did not recognise it. They said that apprenticeships must involve an employer.
I therefore think that there is confusion here, and I know what lies behind the confusion. As the hon. Gentleman said, we have sought to ensure that we have a statutory definition of apprenticeships in the apprenticeship review. While we do not include programme-led apprenticeships in the figures, we acknowledge that we need to make a clear distinction between programme-led apprenticeships in a college, which are sometimes undertaken as preparation for an apprenticeship, and full-blown apprenticeships. I think that the problem is confusion about descriptions, but it is not the reality of the experience of our apprentices as we understand it.

John Hayes: It is important that we clarify this matter. I do not want to delay the Committee unduly, but there are two points to explore. The first is the issue that was identified by the adult learning inspectorate. Let me say, for the hon. Gentleman’s benefit, that the reference is from July to August 2006. I am happy to provide it for him so that he will not have to scour any further. The inspectorate is concerned about those apprenticeships in which there is no workplace element. There is a second, parallel, concern about employer engagement and what constitutes an employer. It is right that many apprenticeships have a significant and implicit relationship with employers. Among the best apprenticeships are those run by Rolls-Royce and Honda. Many of the employers concerned are training providers. I am interested in the Minister’s view on what constitutes an employer and how an employer is defined in that context.

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman has made that point before, and I have inquired into it in some detail. It is not possible for an apprentice to achieve an apprenticeship if they are based solely with a training provider—by that I mean someone whose main activity is education and training. Some employers, usually large employers such as BAE Systems or Honda, set up separate training arms for their apprentices. It is important to acknowledge that trend among some of our larger employers. At a time when the Government and the Opposition are keen for apprenticeships to increase, we would not want to see that development end. That is not the same as the apprentice merely spending his time at a local college. The large employer is able to become the training provider because of the financial means that they have and because of the staff that they can employ to do the training. Again, there is some confusion about descriptions that has led some to suggest that one can get an apprenticeship solely by spending time at a training provider. That is not the case. An apprentice has to be with an employer.
The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will also know that in the review, we recommend group training associations, which is something that he called for. Implicit in that recommendation is the understanding that it can be very difficult for small businesses to offer apprenticeships, and that the relationship that they have to have with the learning and skills council is something that they may find daunting or some way removed from their usual pattern of business. That is why we recognise the desirability of the model of a group training association, whereby a group of small employers hand over the necessary bureaucracy and accreditation that go with an apprenticeship to a central hub.
Group training associations already exist. I have visited the Birmingham electrical group training association that provides that part of the west midlands with a lot of its electricians. That might be described as an apprenticeship with the training provider, but such a description is not accurate. It is the training provider working in partnership with electricians in the west midlands. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s points and that we can move on from some of the confusion, understanding that the Government’s desire is to get the statutory definition right, to bring clarity and to ensure quality in the apprenticeships offered.
The hon. Gentleman has expressed concern that a new national apprenticeship service will be a supply-driven, centrally based, target-oriented model. I want to reassure him that that is exactly the opposite of what is envisaged. For the Government to count training as an apprenticeship, an apprentice must have spent a period of time as an employee and have the status of an employee at the time of completion. In addition, the role of the sector skills council in articulating employer demand will be central to everything that happens as we roll out our ambitious apprenticeship plans.
“World-class Apprenticeships” makes it clear that the new national apprenticeships service will work in partnership with sector skills councils. Indeed, the report introduces a set of new and revised functions for sector skills councils, including promoting the take-up and spread of apprenticeships, branding national completion certificates, maintaining a bank of qualifications from which frameworks will be formulated, working with the national apprenticeships service to communicate quality-assurance messages and information on apprenticeships to employers, and sharing information management.

Charles Walker: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way for one of my rare appearances in this Committee. I do not want to be argumentative and I hope that he does not think that I am being argumentative, but how will we benchmark whether our apprenticeships are world class? That is an over-used phrase. Could we not use more modest language and say that they will be very good apprenticeships? In that way, nobody would be disappointed if they do not end up being world class.

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but it is right that we have bold ambitions for the young people who take that learning and employment option. We have spent much of this afternoon talking about Oxbridge; I want that same level of aspiration for the group of young people who take the apprenticeship route. We want to encourage quality and to legislate for quality. We will be able to do that as a result of the apprenticeship review and we can aspire to world-class apprenticeships. Frankly, if Germany and Australia are able to have apprenticeships that most of the world look to and say that they are good, I am quite sure that we can extend the tradition of companies such as Rolls-Royce and British Telecom and set up such apprenticeships as our ambition.
The clause is but one of the building blocks that we need to put in place on the road to rolling out the entitlement in 2013 and expanding apprenticeships to meet the ambitions set out in response to the Leitch review. The apprenticeship review said that we will go further in legislative terms to give statutory force to the 2013 entitlement. The clause supports that direction of travel. The amendments would exclude the majority of apprentices from the duties on the LSC and cloud the message that we are sending to the system. I hope that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is sufficiently reassured that he can withdraw his amendments.

John Hayes: We have had a long debate on apprenticeships and I do not want perpetuate it longer than the Committee will tolerate, so I will abbreviate my remarks. I only want to pick up on one thing that the Minister said—although I could no doubt debate the issue with him all day and all night—about group training associations. He is right to say that the Government emphasised them in the review. I called for that in my party’s mid-term policy review; they are a useful way of involving small and medium-sized enterprises, which we did not talk about earlier in this regard, but which are vital to the success of the policy. Many of the young people that the Bill deals with will find their training opportunities and their employment opportunities in SMEs. I never waste an opportunity to elevate their calls in our considerations. Group training associations provide a very effective way of allowing such businesses into this network.
We have had a long debate and, in the spirit of the Minister’s response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 68

Provision of transport etc for persons of sixth form age: duty to consider journey times

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 114, in clause 68, page 38, line 35, at end add—
‘(2) The Secretary of State shall commission an independent report into the funding requirements necessary to enable local authorities to provide transport to enable pupils or students to access the entitlement to participate in the diploma programme.’.
Clause 68 requires local authorities, when they are drawing up their school transport policy for young people of sixth form age, to take into account journey times as well as journey costs and distance. There can be no quibble about that. The real concern is the statement in the impact assessment that says, on page 34, paragraph 6.10:
“We do not expect this change to place any additional cost burdens on local authorities.”
The Government’s argument is that local authorities already spend about £900 million a year on educational transport, funded by the formula grant from central Government and through the council tax. To quote from the impact assessment:
“councils are free to use the funding in line with the wishes of their electorate and taking into account their statutory responsibilities.”
However, the Bill increases those very statutory duties and responsibilities, and it does not appear that the Government have matched those increased responsibilities with increased funding. The Local Government Association has expressed its concern and said in its briefing to the Committee:
“This is a case where we remain unconvinced of estimated costs to implement sufficient provision given the nature of 14-19”
education. The LGA points out that many young people of sixth form age, studying for a vocational qualification, might need to travel to different sites.
Interestingly, the Government’s Green Paper sets out their original thinking on the transport implications of raising the participation age to 18 in paragraph 5.17, stating:
“Currently, in relation to pre-16 education, the local authority is required to provide free home-to-school transport for young people where it considers this necessary to facilitate the young person’s attendance...From September 2008 young people from low-income families will be entitled to free travel to one of their three nearest schools, where this is between two and six miles from their home”.
We dealt with that in the Education and Inspections Act 2006. The next paragraph of the Green Paper, 5.18, goes on:
“As part of these proposals to introduce compulsory participation, we will consider whether changes to the post-16 transport policy would be required, including meeting the cost of any new burdens on local authorities. We will consider and consult on, for example, whether to extend and adapt the current pre-16 school transport regulations, and could also investigate the feasibility of providing subsidised transport to 16-18 year olds who are in education or training”.
However, when one looks at the Government’s paper “Raising Expectations: staying in education and training post-16: From policy to legislation”, which is in effect the White Paper leading to the Bill, one sees that the only reference to transport is in paragraph 5.6 on page 26, which mentions:
“A clarification of local authorities’ existing duties in relation to transport, ensuring that, in devising their transport policies for 16 - 18 year olds, they consider travelling time.”
That is all that is said. No mention is made of meeting the costs of any new burden on local authorities or of investigating the feasibility of providing subsidised transport for 15 to 18-year-olds, which is why the impact assessment shows no additional costs to be incurred by local authorities.
That is also why the Association of Colleges has expressed its disappointment that the Bill
“does not strengthen the obligation on local authorities to ensure that affordable transport is available.”
The AOC feels strongly that:
“The provision of affordable transport is vital to assist young people in accessing the right course and in exercising informed choice, which may require study at more than one institution...Local authorities need to take action to ensure that transport is affordable, reliable and convenient for all 16 — 18 year olds.”
The Association of School and College Leaders has also raised concerns about transport, saying that:
“That issue of transport is crucial to all options becoming available to all students...The whole issue of 14 - 19 transport needs to be reviewed, properly managed and funded, not least in relation to its increasingly large carbon footprint. Funding for transport must not be taken from the existing education budget.” 
Amendment No. 114 would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent report into the genuine funding requirements that will enable local authorities to provide the transport that will be needed if students are to access the entitlement to vocational education.

Stephen Williams: I rise to support the aim of the amendment, which is the same as that of amendment No. 158, which we shall come to shortly, although perhaps from a slightly different direction. I think that the Government have massively underestimated the funding that will be necessary to ensure that transport is in place so that the roll-out of diplomas and meaningful choice at 16 will be available to everyone across this country.
We have already seen, with the welcome introduction of free bus travel for those of pensionable age, that that has unforeseen cost consequences for many local authorities in different parts of the country—for example, seaside towns and cities that are tourist attractions, such as my constituency in Bristol. The funding that is in place for that is not adequate, despite what the Government said when they introduced the concessionary bus travel scheme. In those circumstances, we do not want to see a further cost burden on local government.
Despite what the Government say in their regulatory impact assessment, people do travel across boundaries to go from one college to another and they do live and study in different authority areas. We do not want to find that certain local authorities are placed under much heavier cost burdens than others in 2013. I broadly support what the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton argued, but I will stop my remarks there as I have more to say when I speak to the next amendment.

Angela Watkinson: I support of the amendment, as I feel that it is essential that the Secretary of State should commission an independent report to establish the funding requirements for the provision of transport. I speak as a former chairman of the school transport sub-committee of Essex county council, in my days as a county councillor. Our job was to establish the statutory entitlement of applicants to free transport. Once a month, the sub-committee used to get in a minibus and be driven around the county to the homes of the families that were applying for free transport. We often walked from the home to the school to see whether it was feasible and a safe walking distance and whether entitlement to free transport could be established. Elements such as distance and the existence of lighting and footpaths came into our discussions, and we frequently crossed railway lines and farmyards to establish that the route from home to school was not suitable to be walked by a child.
If 16 and 17-year-olds are to be entitled to free transport, there will be a huge additional cost. The cost of transport to education authorities is already enormous. If older children are to be included, the cost will be much higher. The provisions of the Bill also encompass special needs children, including those with mobility problems. Education authority budgets will not be sufficient to take that additional burden. For that reason, I strongly support the amendment. An independent report is needed to establish the real cost of free school transport.

Jim Knight: As we heard, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent report on the funding requirements necessary to enable local authorities to provide transport so that pupils or students could access their entitlement to participate in the diploma programme. In many ways, I entirely agree with its aim. In fact, I agree so much that I am pleased to inform the Committee that we have already commissioned York Consulting to undertake research into transport needs stemming from the introduction of the 14-to-19 reforms, including diplomas. That report, due to be published in June, will consider a range of transport factors, including the funding costs of transport available to local authorities, in order to ensure access.
We agree with the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton so much that not only have we commissioned a report from York Consulting, but we are also conducting research on the delivery of the diploma in rural areas. It is in rural areas, of course, that transport issues feature more prominently. An interim report was published last November, and we plan to publish the final report shortly.
 Angela Watkinson rose—

Jim Knight: I give way to the hon. Member for Upminster, who so assiduously performed her duties on the transport sub-committee of Essex county council.

Angela Watkinson: I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene. One thing that often surprised us in testing whether children were entitled to free transport was that in many cases there would be an adult at home all day and several cars on the driveway—but it did not affect their entitlement. Will the Minister say whether that will be taken into consideration when assessing entitlement under the Bill?

Jim Knight: The matters that will be assessed in respect of the amendments are set out in the clause. The only change that we are making is to do with journey time. Other issues, such as distance, will be included, but I doubt whether the number of cars in the drive will be taken into account.
The reports on diploma delivery in rural areas, to be publishing shortly, will show that it is important to consider access in a wider context than simple transport solutions. For instance, e-learning, common timetabling, peripatetic teaching and mobile provision are existing ways to ensure access to provision without asking young people to travel long distances. However, I have sympathy with the idea of free or subsidised transport for young learners. Some local authorities already provide it, which is another reason for it being quite difficult, in the relatively early days of diploma delivery, to make blanket announcements.

Oliver Heald: rose—

Jim Knight: I shall give way in a moment. I am aware that some authorities, such as Cumbria, already provide free transport for post-16 learners in rural areas.

Oliver Heald: I was going to ask the Minister about that.

Jim Knight: I am delighted to have anticipated the intervention from the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire.
Of my two concerns about requiring all areas to have free or subsidised transport for young learners, one is that it may not fulfil its purpose in helping the young people who most need help. Making transport free is fine, as long as there is provision for them to use it. However, if the bus does not travel through their village or does not travel at a time that allows them to access education, it is not necessarily the answer. We may need to be slightly more sophisticated than merely allowing for free provision, attractive though the headlines might be.
Also, local authorities are currently responsible for transport for 16 to 19-year-old learners, and it is important that they retain some discretion in how they spend and target their funding. As the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton mentioned, we would need proper consultation on the proposals might be brought forward as a result of the various reports and pieces of research that we have commissioned to inform our policy as we roll out diplomas and tackle transport concerns. I am delighted to give way to the hon. Member for Broxbourne.

Charles Walker: The Minister is a real gent. Would free travel extend, in more urban and suburban seats, to rail and tube links, for example? I know that, in my constituency, youngsters go out of Enfield, into Cheshunt, and back to Enfield using train routes.

Jim Knight: I want to make it clear that the hon. Gentleman has not heard me say that I am committing to free transport. I have said that I have some sympathy with the idea of free or subsidised transport. That is something that the Youth Parliament campaigns on strongly. I have held meetings with its members, and, as with other matters that they raise, such as sexual relationship education, it is important that we listen carefully to what they have to say. On whether the proposals on transport will apply in suburban areas, we will have to have a model ensuring that every young person has good access to the range of provision that they need to fulfil their duties in part 1, and therefore to the range of diplomas to which they will be entitled from 2013.
In the light of the fact that we are doing what the amendment asks us to do, I hope that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton will be happy to withdraw it.

Nick Gibb: I am slightly encouraged. The amendment goes to the root of the policy of raising participation to 18, particularly in rural areas. It is disappointing that the final “Delivering 14-19 Reforms in Rural Areas” report, which is due shortly, was not available before this debate. I hope that it will be available before Report, so that it can inform the House about the precise implications of the duty on transport to and from the various colleges and sixth form settings for young people to whom the new duty will apply.
It is also strange that although the Green Paper, “Raising Expectations”, stated that
“we will consider whether changes to the post-16 transport policy would be required, including meeting the cost of any new burdens on local authorities...We will consider and consult”,
that phrasing and statement of intention is missing from the White Paper. That is a major gap in the cohesiveness of the policy.
I am semi-assured by the Minister’s response and I look forward to seeing the report from York Consulting and the “Delivering 14-19 Reforms in Rural Areas” report. I hope that they will lead to a policy that will enable the new duty to be a reality on the ground.

Angela Watkinson: Perhaps it should be drawn to the Committee’s attention that special needs students, particularly those with mobility problems, will not be able to use public transport and will need door-to-door transport. That involves a huge cost.

Oliver Heald: As always, my hon. Friend is a champion of young people with special needs. She makes a valid point again on this occasion.
In view of the Minister’s response to the debate, we will not press the amendment to a Division. We have had a good debate and the matter has been aired. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Stephen Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 158, in clause 68, page 38, line 36, at end insert—
‘(ii)
(a) delete subsection (3)(d), and
(b) insert—
“(8)
in preparing a statement under that section a local education authority has a duty to ensure affordable transport.”’.
We have just considered the affordability for local authorities of the changes that will be brought about if the Bill is enacted. The purpose of the amendment is to consider their affordability for the individual student. We have spent much time this afternoon discussing the importance of independent advice and guidance for young people to make sure that the Bill is successful. Transport and its adequacy and affordability are also essential if this brave new educational world which we are being invited to enter is to succeed.
The Bill as drafted would add time to the existing provisions in local authority transport plans, which already include cost, distance and the need to ensure that there is choice in educational provision. However, it does not specifically deal with affordability. That is quite different because bus fares, train fares or whatever vary enormously around the country, as do individual incomes. The affordability as well as the cost of fares needs to be borne in mind.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is correct. Those worst affected are likely to be in places that are very rural and sparsely populated and where average incomes are low—areas with low-skill, low-wage economies such as Lincolnshire and South Holland and The Deepings. The difficulty is that to access opportunity, people have to travel long distances and often cannot afford to do so.

Stephen Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes an entirely valid point. Movements between different parts of cities are another factor. I do not represent the area, but south Bristol has pockets of extreme poverty and many of the educational and employment opportunities are in the north or on the north-west rim of the city at the M4-M5 interchange. Bristol has the most expensive public transport bus fares in the country. So there are cost barriers within urban areas too.
Once the full roll-out of diplomas has taken place in 2013, it is quite obvious that 14, 15 and 16-year-olds will travel around much more than they do under the existing educational offer. For the purposes of the Bill we are considering provision beyond the age of 16. When compulsion is introduced, many more people will be travelling, whether they are doing the advanced diploma, A-levels, apprenticeships or work-based training. The unavailability of public transport will be a source of constant frustration to many people around the country.
I have mentioned before the comment made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that the nearest further education college to Berwick-upon-Tweed is 50 miles away. Transport will clearly be a consideration in his area. Although the Bill considers time, or adds time to the existing list of considerations that local authorities will bear in mind, that might be regarded as somewhat ironic in many parts of the country. I have already mentioned Bristol where, ironically, it can probably take longer to travel from one side of the city to the other than it may take to travel from Berwick to Alnwick or any other part of Northumberland. Time is not the same in all parts of the country, whatever the laws of physics say. It is certainly not the same when it comes to public transport.
It would be a shame if people’s choice was limited by the public transport offer available to them, such that choice was only able to be meaningfully exercised by those who have access to a car. One of the unforeseen consequences of the Bill might be to encourage more 17-year-olds to put pressure on their parents to let them learn to drive at perhaps too young an age, which could lead to other unfortunate consequences.
During the evidence-taking session at the start of the proceedings, and in subsequent information given to me, the Association of Colleges said that 87 per cent. of further education colleges currently already feel that they must subsidise their students to ensure that they can travel to the courses offered by those colleges. The provision currently available from local authorities or from the pockets of individuals is not sufficient to meet the current requirements of further education. The average cost per further education college is a staggering £305,000—that is the average cost out of the existing budget that a college needs to find to subsidise its students’ travel plans.
Various solutions have been put in place in some parts of the country. In my own area, across the old county of Avon and Somerset, local authorities and the local bus companies have put together a youth rover ticket, which costs £420 a year. In London, public transport is to some extent subsidised for younger people.

Nia Griffith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the increase in the number of people that we are talking about participating under the Bill is a very small percentage of the whole number of young people in the cohort? Any additional expenditure will be a very small percentage of what he describes.

Stephen Williams: The percentage of the cohort not in education, employment or training, at whom the Bill is largely directed, is—depending on who you believe—somewhere between 10 and 15 per cent. That is not an insignificant increase in the number of people who may be travelling around. However, not only will more people be caught directly by the provisions of the Bill, but the educational landscape will change considerably over the next few years as diplomas are rolled out. That change in the underlying structure of the courses that people have access to will, in itself, cause many more people than that 15 per cent. to travel around.
I, the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who often says this, all want the diplomas to be a success, but if they are a success, more young people will travel about the country than is currently the case. It is not just about a narrow number, whether that is the 10 or 15 per cent. of the current cohort; it is that many more additional journeys will be made in the next few years, irrespective of what happens under the Bill.
I see that the clock is crunching down on me, but the main purpose of the amendment is to ensure that when York Consulting provides its independent report on transport plans to the Government, it will look at affordability as well as the other factors currently within local authority transport plans. I hope that the Minister will give the same assurance to me as he gave the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton on a previous amendment.

Jim Knight: I have enjoyed the debate. Time is not the same in all parts of the country—certainly, those listening to our debate this afternoon may have agreed with that sentiment. I was reminded of a previous Public Bill Committee where another representative of the Liberal Democrats told me that in part of Devon, the sun rises in the south. That was equally bizarre.
To get to the point, I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol, West that access to timely and affordable transport is integral to helping young people to access education and training, but I do not believe that the amendment is the answer to those challenges. Local authorities already have a duty to draw up a transport policy statement under section 509(1) of the Education Act 1996. The policy statements relate to young people travelling to school or college. The statement must set out the provision of transport that they consider necessary to facilitate the attendance of people of sixth form age in education.
In preparing the statements, local authorities must take a number of factors into account: cost is one, but the distance between home and school and the need to ensure choice in education are equally important. Local authorities must also consider the needs of students who would not be able to attend a particular education or training establishment without help or support—the hon. Member for Upminster mentioned that. Finally, the transport policy statement must set out any arrangements for help with travel expenses that the authority considers necessary. Those duties should already ensure that transport costs do not prevent young people from attending school or college.
Accepting the amendment would not solve the problem of the absence of transport infrastructure. That is important to ensure that people access education provision, which we are all seeking to do. Cost is not the only factor that we should bear in mind. Beyond the reassurances that I gave on the previous amendment on the work that we are already doing to inform policy on the matter, let me say that affordability and cost are factors in the work that York Consulting is carrying out. I shall not dwell on the technical issues raised by the amendment about how to define affordable transport.
The Learning and Skills Council makes £32 million available through learner support hardship funds to colleges and school sixth forms for that age group. Around 35 per cent.—more than a third—of that funding is used to help individual students who have particular difficulty meeting the cost of transport. The LSC also offers, as we know, support to that age group through the education maintenance allowance. That is not specifically aimed at transport—far from it—but households and students can receive up to £30 a week from the EMA. An element of that might be used toward transport costs, but it would not be reasonable to expect a young person to use all of it for those costs. It is certainly worth bearing in mind that important Government innovation.

Stephen Williams: I certainly supported the introduction of the EMA but, as I understand it, it was meant to be an incentive to people to participate in education rather than to meet transport costs. If the Minister thinks that everything is okay at the moment and that no further work needs to be done, why does he think that 87 per cent. of colleges feel the need to subsidise their students’ transportation costs?

Jim Knight: I am not necessarily saying that everything is completely rosy and we have commissioned further work on the matter. Various obligations and duties are placed on local authorities by the Education Act 1996 and others in respect of learner support, as I said, so that people can access transport. Those powers will be used, but we clearly have more work to do on cost levels, what is affordable, and what is the right form of transport, if we are going to succeed in the policy aim of raising participation. The crucial thing is the powers, which are set out in the 1996 Act, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Williams: I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say. I am not sure what my unspecified hon. Friend meant when he said that the sun sets or rises or whatever it was in the south. That seems to be rather a bizarre statement.
I said that time and distance were not the same. We cannot have an exact equation in all parts of the country because travelling a short distance in the city of Bristol may take longer than travelling a long distance in a rural area. Those things are not as simple as they seem.
I am not particularly reassured that the Minister takes on board fully the fact that affordability is a major factor for some people. That is why colleges must spend on average £305,000 out of their budgets, which is intended for other purposes, on transportation costs. None the less, we eagerly await the findings of York Consulting. I am sure that we will have to return to this topic at a later date when we have read the report, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69

Co-operation as regards provision of 14-19 education and training

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Hayes: The clause deals with collaborative arrangements for the education and training of 14 to 19-year-olds. The explanatory notes say that it
“also enables local education authorities to set up joint arrangements for co-operation on 14-19 education or training covering the areas for which they are responsible.”
Before I say more on that, I must say that the intervention that the hon. Member for Llanelli made on me about two hours ago, has just winged its way to me via a carrier pigeon from Bognor Regis. It asks,
“Who used to say that about doctors?”
My reply was going to be: a Doctor Who always has an important female assistant, who is usually gorgeous.
Coming back to clause 69, I should like to know whether its scope extends to the new diplomas. Their successful implementation will depend on the collaboration between institutions that is central to the clause. This issue has been raised in the House before by me and others, and I know that Ministers are sensitive about it, but there is doubt about how much collaboration is taking place in pursuit of that end. Will the Minister therefore take this opportunity to say a word about that sort of productive collaboration on diplomas?

Jim Knight: The successful delivery of 14-to-19 education depends entirely on there being a collaborative approach within a local area. The local authority, the learning and skills council, employers, higher education institutions and providers of pre and post-16 education need to work together to ensure that the full range of curriculum and qualifications can be delivered. We said in the 14-to-19 education and skills implementation plan published in 2005 that we expected all areas to set up 14-to-19 partnerships that would be led by the local authority and local LSC. We know that that has happened on a voluntary basis, and there are many strong examples of 14-to-19 partnerships, such as the one in south Gloucestershire near the constituency of the hon. Member for Bristol, West. Such partnerships are driving developments locally.
All areas have some sort of collaboration arrangements in place for 14-to-19 partnerships—I hope that helps the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings—but we know that their quality varies. The next few years will be crucial for the local planning of the infrastructure needed for 14-to-19 delivery. We need to be confident that 14-to-19 partnerships are consistent, secure and able to have a strong voice in their localities. The clause will strengthen and underpin the arrangements that local authorities have set up for local co-operation in 14-to-19 education by placing a legal duty on them to make the necessary collaboration arrangements. It will also ensure that 14-to-19 education is an important part of local children’s trust arrangements to provide better outcomes for young people. The clause should stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Michael Foster.]

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Seven o’clock till Thursday 28 February at Nine o’clock.